Relaxations of the shoreline protection - a first step

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! I vote in favor of the proposal in the committee's report.

I will begin with a quote from the Tidö parties' article in Svenska Dagbladet: ”Sweden shall be a country where people's lives are not restricted due to detailed regulations which for the vast majority are often perceived as bizarre. The shore protection has for a long time been just such a regulation, which has expanded to encompass more than what is the shore protection's fundamental purpose – to protect and safeguard valuable nature. It has made it particularly difficult for individuals, companies, and municipalities who want to build near water, even when it concerns small watercourses, dams, and ditches. Therefore, the four coalition parties have now agreed to reform the shore protection.”

We are now taking a first step with reliefs that most should be able to comply with. This shall be followed by a second step with more reliefs. There is a need to investigate how this can be done in the best way, and the investigation shall start as soon as possible. This applies to step two.

The first step is that the general shoreline protection is removed for watercourses narrower than two meters and lakes smaller than one hectare. This also applies to ponds and wetlands established after 1975. This should be obvious, shouldn't it? Why have the rules been the way they have been?

The exemption from shore protection for agricultural activities has been expanded. This should lead to less bureaucracy and greater opportunities. The exemption shall also include aquaculture. In the few cases where nature must still be protected, that possibility will exist, and thus nature conservation will become purposeful instead of general. These are welcome changes.

It is not reasonable that there are the same requirements for shore protection in sparsely populated areas as in the Stockholm archipelago. The legislation needs to be adapted to reality.

The changes also facilitate food production. Perhaps even more importantly, they increase freedom in the countryside. But this small reform – for it is quite small – is not enough. The Tidö government must take a second step. There, the Sverigedemokraterna look forward to new, large-scale reliefs that provide significantly increased degrees of freedom and significantly reduced bureaucracy, and that the decision-making power is transferred to the municipalities, which are the people's representatives at the level where the knowledge of the local conditions and problems is greatest.

Certain specific questions may naturally need an in-depth investigation in step two, which is more comprehensive. The Sweden Democrats wish that the question of the public's access to beaches be investigated more thoroughly, so that we can achieve as good a balance as possible.

Madam Speaker! One can reflect on which decisions should be taken collectively in a society and which should be taken by individuals. One should reflect on that – otherwise, one easily ends up regulating most things out of a desire to set everything right as well as possible. It actually leads to a terrible society, a prohibition society where one must stand with a hat in hand to be allowed to do things. It becomes a surveillance society where one always has to be unsure whether one has done right, whether one is allowed to keep what one was promised, and whether one meets the standards of old and new regulations.

I believe that most Swedes mean well and are prepared to exert themselves and make sacrifices for their fellow countrymen and for the common good. Therefore, one goes a long way with information in Sweden. There is much evidence of that. The Sweden that we Sverigedemokrater want to rebuild is a society with great cohesion where the Swedes become even stronger parts of the nation. This goes hand in hand with the fact that greater degrees of freedom can prevail.

A generally strong nation is a freer nation. Where people strive for one another and for higher values and sacrifice certain things, if necessary, of their own free will. Where one knows that one's fellow countrymen do the same. That is true solidarity.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Staffan Eklöf, for the speech!

It was clarifying regarding how the Sweden Democrats view this. I know that you are satisfied with the proposal that is on the table. I belong to those who think it is appalling and would have liked to see it stopped.

I got stuck on a few things that Staffan Eklöf said, for example that the detailed regulations are bizarre. There are certain parts of the shore protection that, over time, perhaps would need to be changed for the sake of agricultural industries and the like. That is also something we have said. But isn't it very radical to remove an entire piece of legislation? I think the name of the committee report, Relief in the shore protection, is misleading. What you are doing is removing an entire piece of legislation.

Historically, the introduction of the law in 1975 was justified partly by a significantly increased development pressure on shores as a result of extensive summer house construction, and partly by a lack of investigation resources to designate coastal areas in need of protection. The model shifted from one where the county administrative boards introduced protection as needed to a prohibition from the outset, with the possibility of exemptions. The reason was that the county administrative boards lacked the resources to first inventory and then designate the areas that were to be protected.

Now one goes back to that, but in the same breath, one removes money from the county administrative boards, and has done so for several years. Now it is said that they have the opportunity to designate protection again and that no major values will disappear. Then my question is: Will the Sverigedemokraterna ensure that the county administrative boards now get the opportunity to go out and inventory and protect what needs to be protected when the entire legislation is completely removed?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Emma Nohrén for the question.

What we are removing is the general coastal protection. There will be an opportunity to designate areas that need protection due to natural values. In this way, it will become a purposeful protection instead of a large, smeared protection with poor accuracy.

In this context, I want to remind us of what we are talking about, namely one of the world's most water-rich countries. We have over 100,000 lakes. Furthermore, we have 50,000 nautical miles of watercourses and 4,800 nautical miles of coastline. The watercourses could therefore stretch more than ten times around the earth. There are incredibly long stretches of shoreline here. The development that will result from eased regulations will be minimal in comparison. Furthermore, there is an opportunity to protect certain areas if it should be necessary despite this small pressure of exploitation.

Let us look at the small watercourses. There are definitely greater threats to the coastal environments. We are talking about rivers that are less than two meters wide and lakes that are under one hectare.

The member referred to the word bizarre. It was a quote from an article. But I think there have indeed been bizarre rules, and I did receive agreement from the member. When one, for example, digs a pond or creates a wetland, a shoreline protection is created, with restrictions on building there. I can agree that it is bizarre.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! The member of Parliament speaks of small watercourses and small lakes as if they are insignificant, but they often have an incredibly great ecological significance as dispersal corridors. Thanks to shoreline protection, there is nature on both sides. Water in nature is incredibly important for both life below the surface and life on the surface. These are very important areas when it comes to climate adaptation and flood protection. A small lake, in this case one hectare, is two common football pitches or one and a half Allsvenskan football pitches. It is, therefore, quite large.

Often it is the coastal environments, not the large deep waters, that are the absolutely most species-rich when one speaks of aquatic environments. It is about where the sea meets the land and where the land meets the water. It is these environments that can come to be affected. When one builds nearby, it will be difficult to take measures such as a potential restoration of meanders, for example when one is to restore water in agricultural landscapes.

As I said, there are certain things that would need to be changed, but the government and Sverigedemokraterna are rather removing than correcting. That is what I am opposing.

Staffan Eklöf also spoke about the fact that there is an incredible amount of water here, that we have a shoreline protection legislation, and that we do not need to have all of this. Despite that, beaches disappear every year. In 2020 alone, 17 ½ miles of development affected shorelines that were of use. In just the last few years, almost 150 miles of beaches in Sweden have been claimed. This has occurred despite the fact that we have shoreline protection areas.

What is the problem, Staffan Eklöf? We can do this with small changes. Why must the entire legislation be removed? How are we going to ensure that what needs to be protected is actually protected?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! In the question regarding the restoration of watercourses, the member of Parliament raised a good example. On our side, we believe that restoration should take place on the landowner's terms and often at their initiative. That is why we give support for that purpose, and as I understand it, the Green Party also stands behind it. That means that planning of constructions and planning of watercourses end up on the same desk at the landowner's. That means very few problems.

The discussion is actually about what kind of society one wants. I touched on that a bit in my speech. Do you want a highly regulated society? A desire to have good nature everywhere implies a far-reaching requirement. One has to compromise on quite a lot.

We have had exploitation of our shores and our nature since the Stone Age, obviously on a small but then increasing scale. But today's generation must also be given the opportunity to exploit. If one cannot exploit, one becomes very limited in what one can do.

There are two things to choose between: to aim for good nature everywhere or to aim at preserving species, preserving critical and distinctive environments and at the same time having a living countryside. We prioritize preserving species, preserving distinctive environments, having a living countryside and letting people have freedom. This is what we prioritize instead of good nature everywhere.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Staffan Eklöf, for the speech!

This exchange may be a bit different from the one we just listened to.

It is clear that the government understands that this involves a very small change. It is said that this is a first step. The changes that will come are small. Eleven county administrative boards have already made decisions on the same kind of exceptions. Thus, the majority of Sweden already has these possibilities.

Furthermore, during the previous parliamentary term, there was a government bill on the Riksdag's table that could have made this a reality already then, if the current government parties had not blocked the bill. It is a very meager result from this government.

Now, right at the very end of this parliamentary term, a new inquiry is being drafted. Is the issue not more pressing than that for the Sverigedemokraterna?

Another aspect of this, which I think was completely missing both in the member's speech and in the exchange of remarks, is that the basis for the shore protection when it was introduced was not to protect the environment but to guarantee the public's access to watercourses, the right of public access. Here, I think the government's and the Sweden Democrats' proposals completely miss the mark, when free passage is not guaranteed in connection with the repeal of the shore protection. How does the member think about this?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question!

This was a completely different tone than from Miljöpartiet. We receive diametrically different criticism from one side and the other. This can be good for the listeners to keep in mind. It is also good that the Socialdemokraterna agree with us – that is not stupid!

When it comes to accessibility, we have, just as I showed here, an extremely large amount of watercourses. This is about a change that is a small step, according to the member himself. It is only the narrow, small watercourses that are affected by the removal of the general shoreline protection. It is therefore about a very small limitation.

To this, the right of public access (allemansrätten) applies as long as it does not involve building plots. The municipality has the authority to determine where the building plot ends. It is conceivable that one owns property down to the watercourse and that the building plot ends a distance above. In that case, the right of public access is available.

But we are talking here about a second step, and that is also what the Social Democrats want. An investigation is to be launched there. It is very natural, the Sweden Democrats think, that in that investigation, one looks at this question and does a deep dive into how the rules should look in order for a good balance to be reached between accessibility and all other values that are benefited by different decisions.

In conclusion, this is somewhat interesting. That the Social Democrats criticize us when they do not get what they want, I think is natural. But they also criticize us when they do get what they want. It is somewhat exciting.

When it comes to the timing, finally, the question is not asked to the right person. It is the government that controls the timing of this issue. Had the minister been here, I would have asked the question myself.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Staffan Eklöf, for the answer!

No one should try to convince me that the Sweden Democrats do not have a large, if not decisive, influence over this government's priorities, given that they have officials inside the Government Offices, in the coordination. It is clear that this also falls back on the Sweden Democrats' choice of the issues that are prioritized.

I can state that the Sweden Democrats, during this parliamentary term, have completely abandoned the great need for a more flexible, differentiated coastal protection legislation. It is about opportunities that are needed in rural areas and in sparsely populated areas to develop the communities in a good way for the benefit of both individuals and society as a whole. This leaves the Sweden Democrats stranded when it comes to the coastal protection issue. I think the voters should take that with them when they go to the polls next year.

But I still want to emphasize that I think a crucial part is being missed. If we are to have a functioning shore protection, it is also about guaranteeing the right of public access (allemansrätten). Here I mean that the Sweden Democrats and the government have lost their way.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! It seems as if Järrebring knows more than I do about the conditions we have in our cooperation, what we do and what we know. I suppose I will have to hire Järrebring as a consultant in the future.

I have already answered the question regarding access to watercourses.

I quoted from the article about bizarre rules. We can also conclude that there is bizarre criticism: that we should have released the development issues. It is for the development in the countryside that we do this.

Now we are back there. We get criticism when we do what the Social Democrats don't want, and we get criticism when we do what the Social Democrats want. It is a bit strange. I can actually quote Ibrahim Baylan: Isn't this a bit too quarrelsome?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Madam Speaker! The insurance industry warns of serious risks with dismantling the coastal protection. It is well known that the sea level will rise as the earth's temperature increases, but we also face more extreme weather with increased rainfall and a greater risk of flooding. This also affects small watercourses and means that buildings constructed near them are threatened by flooding. Properties that can be insured today may not be insurable in the future, when the risks become too great.

I understand that people think it is pleasant to live near water, but the state has a greater responsibility for its citizens than just facilitating what is pleasant. We must also do our best to foresee upcoming risks and take responsibility for minimizing them. Already today, there are landowners who feel cheated because they have been granted permission to build in places that shortly thereafter have been affected by flooding. High demands are placed on property owners to ensure that they themselves keep track of the risks.

That the Sweden Democrats do not harbor any significant commitment to nature and flora and fauna will probably not come as a surprise to anyone. I also did not expect them to care that everyone in Sweden should have equal access to nature. But something that one might still have expected is that the Sweden Democrats would care a bit more about the fact that property owners risk being ruined.

I wonder therefore: Can Staffan Eklöf really in good conscience encourage more people to build near water, despite the risks?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question!

Sea level is not affected by the shore protection. Then it is a matter of flood adaptation and climate adaptation, and that is not part of the shore protection; it is handled via the Planning and Building Act.

A large part of this is about giving landowners greater control and greater freedom. I do not believe it is the state's duty to guarantee harmlessness in every case for a landowner who wants to make their own decision.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Madam Speaker! It is true as Staffan Eklöf says: From the beginning, when the shore protection was introduced, climate adaptation was not part of the purpose. But it is a clear example of positive synergies that can arise with nature conservation. It has turned out to benefit Sweden greatly that we have the shore protection – it means that we are better protected against the effects of the climate crisis than some other countries.

I think it is positive that people in Sweden have a great trust in authorities, and it is something we need to take advantage of. It also means that people expect authorities to sound the alarm when there are risks that are difficult for each individual to know about. It is quite a lot to demand that all land or property owners should have a handle on which risks can affect their specific properties. It is already well known that the municipalities do not take full responsibility for this and that they, on the contrary, welcome construction near water in many places that we know are exposed to large flood risks.

It was still a quite clear message from Staffan Eklöf: the Sweden Democrats do not think it is so important to protect these landowners – this will be entirely their own responsibility, and they have to take the full economic risk when they are hit by floods, which can actually ruin property owners.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! The member is speaking of synergy effects. But it shall nevertheless be handled under the Planning and Building Act. Then it will be handled in the correct order.

Then it continues to come, bizarre criticism that the Sweden Democrats do not care about nature and the environment. It is bizarre. We are not such a party. Today we received an article in Ny Teknik about a paradigm shift in environmental policy.

It is strange that Vänsterpartiet precisely votes against the environmental reforms that actually matter.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Stina Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! It is positive and welcome that the government is now presenting relaxations in the shore protection. I hear here how Member Eklöf, Sverigedemokraterna, in his speech argues for the countryside in a way that sounds almost disproportionate if one looks at all the other proposals that the government has presented during the past years – and perhaps especially if one looks at what the government has not presented and the cases where it perhaps did not turn out quite as one had envisioned. I am thinking of this with the farm sales, which indeed did not quite turn out as our vineyards and microbreweries had expected.

Here we have a proposal on the table. For me, it is sweet music to hear how the Sweden Democrats argue for freedom.

I would like to say that this is largely a repetition of the proposals that Centerpartiet has already pushed for and the investigations that we have worked out over several years.

My question to Eklöf is: Why has it taken so long for the government to act on these finished proposals?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question! The Member says that it is a repetition of the Center Party's proposal. Yes, it is true that the Center Party has worked for this, and that is good. But the first step is, therefore, about things that we believe most can agree to. Then comes a second step, and we are perhaps a little less certain that everyone will agree to that change. I believe, however, that the Center Party will agree to it, because the Center Party has pushed in that direction previously.

I believe that the Centre Party can be happy and that the whole thing continues in the direction that the Centre Party wants. That is at least what I believe, but of course it is the Centre Party that has the right of interpretation.

We think alike. I thank the member for saying that what I say sounds good and that it is lovely music in her ears. It sounds very pleasant.

Let me say a little bit about the timing of this. In that regard, I actually have to refer to the government, which can give a better answer. I do not think we coordinate everything when it comes to these issues, but I could be wrong there.

We often think quite similarly. We are moving in roughly the same direction. It is actually only the immigration policy that separates us significantly. If only Center could let go of its immigration policy, I believe it would be possible to cooperate and reach good compromises. One has to give and take.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Stina Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! It is interesting to hear how Eklöf puts words in my mouth about how the Center Party and the Sweden Democrats would think alike. But I shall stick to today's debate topic regarding the shore protection.

I would like to say that the member and the Sweden Democrats, who are a supporting party to the government, are dodging the question of why, so to speak, this has not been put on the table until now. It is not about taking responsibility for having a position of power, but one simply says that it is someone else's responsibility.

If the Minister of State had been present here today, we could have asked the question directly to the Minister. Responsibility needs to be taken in this. Right now, there are several entrepreneurs in the countryside who have been kept waiting. They have been denied their building permit applications, and it has hindered development. This has truly been dragged out.

In our reservations in today's matter, we want to go even further than the government does. My follow-up question is therefore: This was step one, but when will step two come? What can we expect then – will it take another five years before the government succeeds in presenting something? In the meantime, our companies in the countryside are waiting.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! I do not know when step two will come. It has been preliminarily announced that the directives are to come in May, I believe. But I do not know. I would have asked the minister if she had been here.

Taking responsibility is important, but one cannot take responsibility for what one cannot influence. That is also important.

What the Center Party has requested is now coming. I think the criticism is a bit belated. A few years ago, one could have thought it was justified criticism – it surely came then too – but now it is coming a bit too late. There is a risk that I feel like quoting Ibrahim Baylan again, but I shall not do that.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! We are here to debate coastal protection rules. The referral covers some motions from the general motion period, but above all, it concerns the bill Relief in coastal protection – a first step. In that, the government has presented proposals to remove the general coastal protection from watercourses that are less than two meters – how that is to be measured is not specified – and from bodies of water that are less than one hectare.

I want to start by saying that I move for approval of reservation 1, which means a rejection of the bill. In normal cases, we usually only move for approval of one of the motions we have in order not to take up too much time, but here I also want to move for approval of reservation 5, which concerns what we would like to do instead, so that it is not just said that we are against it.

Madam Speaker! What we are now discussing is often presented as minor adjustments. It is stated that these are relaxations of the shore protection. It is described as something in the margins in order to remove bizarre detailed regulations. But, Madam Speaker, it is actually a radical change of course. It concerns a regulatory framework that is being abolished entirely. Instead of improving and changing based on new knowledge, a piece of legislation that was established on good grounds is being removed.

Madam Speaker! In Sweden, we have a long tradition of protecting nature. Based on new knowledge, we have improved and expanded the regulatory framework. The first coastal protection legislations came in the early 1950s. At that time, it was about securing the public's access to beaches. It was primarily because the industrial vacationers arrived. It was thought that the workers should have healthy recreation, and therefore they should have access to water and water play.

Since then, this has been expanded and it has been seen that it also has great value for animals and nature. One can say that the legislation we have today largely stems from the 1974 legislation, which entered into force in 1975. Then a change also occurred in the environmental legislation during the 90s. That is where we are today. It is clear that many things have happened since then. We have also received other opportunities to build and so on. Some changes may need to be made.

We see today that we need to climate-adapt the landscape in a different way. This is because we have, in many respects, built ourselves out of certain places, that we have streamlined so much that we have bitten ourselves in the tail, or that we have learned new things. We also understand that it can go wrong if one takes a measure, for example climate-adapts and builds an irrigation pond, and then a shoreline protection is applied to the whole, which thus lays a dead hand over the other activity. This we address in reservation 5.

But let me return to the shore protection. Shore protection is incredibly important for the public's access to water, so that we can walk along our shores and so that we have the same opportunity, regardless of the size of one's wallet, to engage in mobile outdoor life. But shore protection is also one of our absolutely most important nature and environmental legislations.

The areas around the shores are our most species-rich. This also applies to small watercourses. Perhaps the small watercourses are sometimes more important than the larger ones, because they are scattered throughout the landscape. They are very important spawning sites for, for example, insects. Many of them live for a large part of their lives as nymphs and larvae under the surface before then flying up. The watercourses are nurseries and pantries for our fish species. For many of our land-dwelling animals, it is also incredibly important to find water. Furthermore, they become dispersal corridors in our nature when there is an opportunity for free passage around them. This allows wildlife to be transported and we get what is commonly called connectivity between different areas.

When one now removes this, it is done without inventorying where it is actually so important that it should remain. Today, there is an opportunity to apply for exemptions for these things. Exemptions are granted. In an exchange of remarks, I pointed out how much is actually disappearing. In just the last five years, it is therefore more than 150 miles of Sweden's coastlines that have actually been built upon on legal grounds.

Then one might wonder: Do we really need to remove all of this in the laws? It is also signaled that this is a first step and that one then wants to remove further parts of the legislation. But a strong general shore protection is crucial for the right of public access and for the ecosystems.

The part of the legislation that is now wanted to be removed was introduced in 1975. It was introduced because the county administrative boards indicated that they did not have the possibility – and the means – to be out and see where this was important and what was needed. It thus became a general prohibition that one can apply for a dispensation from.

This situation still remains. The County Administrative Board in Stockholm states in its referral response regarding the proposal to abolish coastal protection near small watercourses that the lack of resources risks leading to extensive negative consequences.

We also see that if there is anything this government has done, it is that they have cut the resources to the county administrative boards. This will therefore not become any easier.

The government has said that they are doing this to facilitate things in the countryside. They want it to be possible to build more. But when people ask questions about it, they say that it will not be built that much. The person speaking about it is, therefore, just crying wolf without the wolf coming. Then I wonder: Do you believe that 50,000 new homes will be built, or whatever it is, as one minister says? Or do you believe that nothing will happen, as another minister says?

This is very strange. Furthermore, it is not included in the impact assessments.

We also see that justification is lacking regarding this. It is said that it is believed that it will get better. The consequences of the proposal have been somewhat mitigated. But let us say that the shore protection is lifted in many counties. That says nothing about the values there. Several county administrative boards have already done this on their own initiative. They have deliberately taken that step. But that is not a reason to remove it in other places, where the county administrative boards have said that there is a reason for it remaining. They do not have the resources to do this in another way. This will become a very strange way of reasoning.

There is a consensus in the Riksdag to change precisely those parts where it concerns problems or where it can be seen that unnecessary goal conflicts will arise. But there is no consensus on removing a piece of legislation. If one looks at what the Swedish people say in various opinion polls, one sees that there is also no popular support for it. There is broad majority support for a strong shore protection in all opinion polls that have been conducted.

As I said, the coasts and beaches are already used very much. The small ones are at least as important as the large ones. They are the capillaries. Earlier today, together with several colleagues here, I was at a seminar on climate adaptation. It is precisely in those areas that are capillaries that climate adaptation begins when it comes to taking up water.

We have not even gotten to drinking water production. I see that I have exceeded my speaking time. I will return in the various exchanges of remarks, I suspect.

I want to say again that I think this is an incredibly poor way to protect and preserve nature, and it is bad to come up with arguments for something without having investigated the consequences. Once this has been removed, it will be gone forever. It means that these environments will stand unprotected.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Emma Nohrén, for the speech!

In her speech, Emma Nohrén called for the rejection of the entire bill. But it is good that she came up with something else instead. I have the report with me here, because Emma Nohrén pointed to reservation number 5 from Miljöpartiet, where it states what is wanted instead.

Then the question is: Does the Green Party want any form of development in the countryside at all? Or should the countryside be preserved in some kind of dream state, as it is here and now or possibly as it was a long time ago? In some parts, a pre-industrial era is being strived for.

In the reservation, where it states what is desired, it says that this can be good when it comes to climate adaptation measures or certain nature tourism. It says nothing about me or my friends back home in Värmland who want to build and live on beautiful plots. Thus, it is not said that one should live on the water, but one might at least want a view over the water.

When it comes to those of us who actually live and work in the countryside, it does not seem like Miljöpartiet wants to do anything. It is only about climate adaptation and about those who are going to come there as tourists.

Then I will return to the question: Do you desire some form of development in the countryside? If the answer is yes, one should also have the opportunity to build and live in the countryside, perhaps in certain parts where there is actually a fine view and where it is pleasant to live and not deep in the forest where you can't see anything.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Kjell-Arne Ottosson, for the question!

If the member continues reading in the same reservation, he will see that it also states that the regulations for the addition to and conversion of existing buildings in rural areas may need a review in order to, for example, facilitate multi-generational living. It says a bit more in the motion text itself, but this is what is included in the reservation text. We therefore absolutely see this.

But I think this is the wrong tool to use for the things the member is requesting. There are already LIS areas. It is about rural development in coastal areas. It is a reform that was investigated in 2009 and which came a bit later. The municipalities can then designate coastal areas for construction or other things.

It has worked both well and a bit poorly, but it is a fairly new legislation. Why not instead tweak it so that it becomes better? The main reason why people do not think it is good legislation is that they have been told no to construction in areas due to high nature values or due to something concerning outdoor life.

That means that the interests have been weighed against each other and it has been seen that there is a reason why we have a shoreline protection. In that case, it has remained, and in that case, some have become angry. It is not the case that one automatically gets this with LIS just because one applies for it. On the other hand, one can perhaps move it to another area.

I absolutely think it is important to develop this so that the legislation works as intended, so that we get development, residential environments and business areas also in the countryside.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I will give Emma Nohrén credit that there was a continuation. But this concerns renovation and extension. It does not concern new houses for people in the countryside or for those who perhaps want to move back when they have finished their studies and who want to establish themselves in their home region. No, that possibility does not exist with the Miljöpartiets proposal – unless one builds within the courtyard, which one might come from. It is therefore about building on the same plot. That possibility exists then, because you write about multi-generational housing.

Emma Nohrén also highlighted LIS. I can only agree that, from what I have seen, it has in many respects functioned quite poorly instead.

The question is who should have the ownership of these issues. It is quite interesting. Emma Nohrén mentioned very much about the County Administrative Board in her speech. If I listened correctly, the municipal level was not mentioned at all. Is it not the case that the municipality and the building and environment committee – or whatever it is called in the municipality – has the local knowledge and that, in that case, one should give them significantly greater power than one gives the County Administrative Board?

We have seen far too many examples of how municipalities want to develop areas so that, not least for mobile outdoor life, it should be possible to move at all – because it is growing over. But it should not be moved at all. If one had listened to the municipalities, more of these fine areas would have been established. More LIS areas would have been obtained, which would have been good for the development of the countryside.

From Emma Nohrén, it sounds like it is the county administrative board – and only the county administrative board – that should have authority over this. How does the Green Party view that question? Is it the municipality that should have the responsibility or is it the county administrative board? Who should rule?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Kjell-Arne Ottosson for the question. First and foremost: If the Tidö government had given more money to nature conservation, the nature conservation areas might not have grown over again.

When it comes to the shoreline protection areas, we see that the County Administrative Board should have a larger role. We have previously submitted a motion stating that we believe this should return to how it was. Many municipalities are so small that it is difficult regarding the competence of how this should be handled. It must, of course, be initiated at the municipal level, and one must have the municipal competence. The County Administrative Board, however, needs to have a larger coordinating role, because water moves in the landscape. What is done in one municipality often affects the next – or a previous – municipality as well.

When one looks at, for example, future weather and how it will be with climate adaptation, one sees that we must work more across municipal boundaries. There, the county administrative boards will have an incredibly much larger and more significant role, and they must be given the means to be able to work with this. That is what we discussed this morning.

There were proposals in the Environmental Goals Commission that Kjell-Arne Ottosson also stood behind as a member of this. They concerned the county administrative board's coordinating role, which we think is good. We were also in agreement there on changing the purposes of the shore protection so that they follow the EU's framework directive for marine and water environment as well as the birds and habitats directive. That would be the purpose instead of, as it is now, having ten different sub-purposes.

If we had followed what we agreed upon in the Environmental Goals Preparation – and which all parties agreed on in that section – we would have solved a good deal of the problems that one is now trying to solve by instead removing a piece of legislation.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Stina Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Nohrén for the speech and the description of how the Member and the Miljöpartiet view the shore protection. I can say that we agree on much – including climate adaptation, which we spoke about earlier today – but here we have completely diametrically opposed starting points.

I would like to say that it is incorrect to claim that these proposals involve major restrictions on the right of public access (allemansrätten). On the contrary, it is about easing the strict rules around ditches and small lakes. Larger lakes and watercourses will still be protected. It is not about making enormous restrictions on animal and wildlife, but about creating a purposeful coastal protection that protects what the coastal protection is intended to protect.

Miljöpartiet and the member of Parliament claim in a debate article published the other day that tens of thousands of lakes and watercourses will be left completely without protection. But what kind of water are we actually talking about here? Is it really about nature-valuable lakes where people swim and spend time, or is it about artificial ditches, drainage channels, and smaller ponds that can hardly even be walked by? Is it really reasonable to treat all ditches and watercourses the same? Should one treat forest ditches in Norrbotten in the same way as a bathing beach in Sörmland?

In light of the discussion we had earlier regarding climate impact, I would like to say that the shore protection has also, to some extent, limited the possibility of constructing irrigation ponds. We have irrigation ponds here in Skåne that risk now being covered by shore protection, even though they were built in the last century.

Does the member not believe that there are differences between different watercourses? Is it worth protecting all ditches and small brooks in the same way as large lakes?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the question. I think it is very good that the member took a reply from me so that we can look at this. On the one hand, there are differences in how we view the matter, which is probably good to clear up, and on the other hand, there are some misunderstandings about how we interpret this.

The biggest problem with the decision we are debating today is that one removes a piece of legislation instead of ensuring, for example, to make exceptions for ditches. Here, natural streams receive the same lack of protection as a ditch. It becomes an undifferentiated law, because there is no law. Instead, it becomes free rein everywhere. There are other planning and building regulations, but the shore protection and the purposes of it are gone.

I think it is completely the wrong way to go to remove a piece of legislation instead of trying to change or add legislative proposals that actually improve it and make it more purposeful.

I moved two reservations because we have proposals that one should be able to make exceptions for irrigation, dams, and such things. One should be able to do such things without suddenly getting shore protection over a farm. That was not the intention from the beginning. We think, however, that it is very rigid to simply say that everything that has been done later than the year 1975 by definition is not included in the legislation. Then one misses the point, because quite a lot could have happened with environmental values in 50 years.

Our biggest problem with this is that one does not change, correct, or modernize the legislation, but instead one removes it and gives a mountain stream the same legal protection – or lack of legal protection – as a ditch in Skåne.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Stina Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! The member describes that we are removing legislation. I think that the municipalities still have responsibility for building permits, that the Environmental Code remains, and that high natural values will still be respected. An investigation will come eventually, if we are to believe the government.

I see it as entirely possible to protect nature and at the same time provide room for local development. That in itself is no contradiction, but it requires that we dare to see nuances and distinguish between where protection is truly needed and where concessions can be made without anything important being lost.

There have been different assessments so far. We are now in the capital – in Stockholm. Here, one has succeeded in building by the water in very many places. One has different approaches than one has in many places in the countryside. It is clear that there is no strong opinion for making concessions in the shore protection, because there are fewer people living here who it could actually benefit.

We must see the whole of Sweden. I also want to say that it is so clear regarding this that Miljöpartiet has a different view on the countryside than Centerpartiet does. We truly safeguard the companies in the countryside and want them to be able to develop and operate there even if there is a ditch nearby. We do not want to make a distinction between city and country here, which in practice has actually been done. In what way does Miljöpartiet want to safeguard the countryside and at the same time maintain the shore protection?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! It becomes almost philosophical questions. I would like to say that it often appears as a rural issue to remove the shore protection. But if one looks at where the pressure for development will likely be greatest, one sees that it is in the vicinity of our urban areas and towns. It is also there that there is the least access to water and very much has already been built on what has been saved.

We also think that there should be a living countryside, but we have had an exemption process to achieve that. When it comes to the irrigation dams and the climate measures from them, we also have proposals that the legislation regarding the shore protection there should be changed.

What is being done with this legislation is that, using the countryside as an argument, the protection for small watercourses and lakes is being removed everywhere in the entire country. Those who read the referral responses see that many are incredibly critical, especially in the larger cities because it will lead to increased pressure on the shores there. They are also disappearing, and they are needed.

I believe, therefore, that one would need to do this in a completely different way. I believe that one needs to correct what needs to be corrected, where legislation and other things have fallen behind, but continue to have a strong shore protection throughout the country – with the possibility of exemptions when needed. The countryside is perhaps just such a place where one should be even more generous with exemptions than one has been, even though we see that one has been generous so far as well.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! We are debating Relief in the coastal protection – a first step. This will be good.

Dear friends in the Swedish Riksdag! The coastal protection in the form it has today has been restrictive. It has been a major restriction on private, individual use and ownership.

I have a good friend at home in the fertile Östergötland. He owns some land with a lake on it. By the lake, there was a small summer cottage, and my good friend wanted to convert the summer cottage into a year-round residence. He also wanted to move it ten meters further away from the lake, as it was located very close. For four years, he had to fight against various authorities to get permission to build his residence by that lake and on the land that he owns. The reason he was not allowed to build out the summer cottage was that it encroached on the public interest. He would thus build his residence by a lake on land that he owns.

Madam Speaker! Another example is a neighbor, a family with children, whose house is located approximately 80 meters from a small stream. They moved in, started a family – they had children – and needed to extend their house. They also had to fight for several years because of the shoreline protection.

This has not worked. This implies restrictions on the individual in a way that we can never accept. From the Moderate side, it is a day of victory when we vote this through. Because that is exactly how it should be: We shall believe in the individual and in the ownership and use of the countryside. Whatever is said in this debate, it is the first step in facilitating the coastal protection linked to the countryside. This is a countryside proposal.

I know that we have different ideologies in this chamber. Not everyone likes freedom, human, private ownership and so on. Individual freedom and property rights are the foundation of a flourishing democracy, but then we must also allow this. We must let people make their own decisions, make their own mistakes and take responsibility for what they have done. We do that by giving them more freedom – by removing the shoreline protection.

We in the Tidö cooperation are now delivering what so many have talked about for a long time but which one has not succeeded in forming majorities in this chamber to implement. We are delivering it now. The Tidö parties are delivering this.

Ever since 1975 we have talked about introducing relaxations in the shore protection, and that is what is being done now. Then someone says: "We will build on far too much nature!" No, we will not build on far too much nature. We have municipalities in this country that have as many lakes as inhabitants. I do not have the figure in my head today, but there are so many meters of shore-protected strip in Sweden that all shore-protected strips in Sweden would not be built upon even if all inhabitants built near the shore.

This is legislation that has hit very unevenly – legislation that we are now changing so that we give the countryside the opportunity to develop and the green industries the opportunity not to take into account shore protection as soon as they want to carry out some form of development.

What then is the difference compared to the proposal that was voted down three years ago? Perhaps the biggest difference, Madam Speaker, is that the 25-meter strip closest to the water now disappears. Now we are removing the shore protection all the way down to the water, because as long as that shore protection exists, it is a restriction. That is the biggest difference.

It often sounds in the debate here as if we are now going to destroy all natural values, as if it will be a catastrophe and as if doomsday is near. All houses will sink into the watercourses due to climate change, people say. No, it will not be like that – and above all not when it comes to the sea, because this proposal is not even about the sea.

In the agricultural trade journal, ATL, a column by a farmer was written a few weeks ago. Her name is Elisabeth Hidén and she is a milk producer in Västergötland. I think she puts her finger on something incredibly important, and I actually intend to read a section from the column, Madam Speaker.

It shows, in fact, incredibly clearly the problem we actually have in the Swedish countryside, which we for such a long time have tried to regulate to death in different ways. We have tried to restrict and reduce people's opportunity to have a forward-looking spirit – a belief in and a drive to move forward and develop the countryside. If there are people who want to settle in the countryside and want the attractive plots, we should not have a whole mass of legislation that makes it difficult for them.

Elisabeth concludes her chronicle as follows: "It must not be changed but must be preserved. It must not be demolished but must be maintained. It must not be built upon but the landscape must be kept open. With what hand? And with what money? It is easy to talk about cultural heritage, open landscapes and ecological diversity – but someone must also work together that heritage and create the value. Someone must take the risk, invest, manage the lands, clear the ditch, maintain the stone fence. Who in today's generation shall build stone walls for the future?"

She puts her finger on exactly the problems that the countryside has today. We in the Tidösamarbetet want to change those problems. We want to make the situation better, and this is a first step. Today or tomorrow, we will together press the button for a first step regarding the shore protection, Madam Speaker.

Then we look forward to taking the next step together as well. The Moderates, in fact, want much more when it comes to the shore protection, because it needs to be fundamentally changed. But now we take the first step, which is linked to the countryside.

(Applause)

In this speech, Helena Storckenfeldt, Oskar Svärd and Viktor Wärnick (all M) as well as Staffan Eklöf (SD) and Elin Nilsson (L) agreed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the speech, John Widegren!

We Social Democrats agree with the Moderates that a modernization of the shore protection is needed, but we have a slightly different starting point. The Moderates and John Widegren have a very strong focus on the individual and property rights, and we Social Democrats perhaps have a greater focus on societal development. We think it is important that consideration is also given to the environment, free passage, and the right of public access.

So that is how the dividing line looks between our parties, but we had, as we said, practically the same content – with the exception that we actually maintained free passage – in the bill that you voted against three years ago, John Widegren. In principle, the proposal that we are going to take a position on today or tomorrow could have been in place already.

Would it not have been reasonable for you in the Moderaterna to have supported that proposal and then, immediately after the election, commissioned an inquiry, which you are now sketching out to do? Why has it taken such a long time, and why did it not become more than this?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Joakim Järrebring for the question.

Why didn't it become more than this, I wonder a representative for the party that has governed this country during the vast majority of the time I can remember.

We are doing it now. We are doing this. We have ensured to form a majority in this chamber to make these changes. One did not ensure to form a majority for the proposal that was tabled in 2022; it was apparently not good enough. Here we have formed a proposal that is good and for which we are forming a majority.

We do not like the proposal that the last 25 meters should continue to be protected. The Moderates also think that the right of public access is very important, but it is not more important than the person who owns the strip in question and who may want to build on it and have their beach plot. That must come first. We will have an incredible amount of nature left in Sweden. All of Sweden is, I usually say, a recreation area that will be accessible to the public, with high nature values and so on.

Member of the Board Järrebring spoke at the beginning of his contribution about how the Moderates mostly stand up for the individual while the Social Democrats think about societal development. But who is going to stand for societal development in these areas? It is the entrepreneurs and the people who own and operate in the countryside. It is they who will stand for societal development. Then it is also reasonable that they are the ones who get improved conditions to conduct their activities in the countryside?

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the answer.

Is it correctly understood that the Moderates mean that we can very well have the right of public access as long as it does not encroach on the individual's property? I heard it, but I may have misunderstood the member. The member is welcome to elaborate on that.

The Social Democrats have for several years pointed out that we need a more flexible coastal protection. The current one has unreasonable consequences when it is necessary to develop society and create growth, not just in sparsely populated areas and rural areas but in all of Sweden. The Social Democrats are very much looking forward to an investigation and to a more differentiated coastal protection, but we do need to maintain the balance. We also need to take environmental values into account and ensure that people have the opportunity to truly exercise the right of public access. We should not just have the right of public access on paper.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Joakim Järrebring for the question.

I am not very worried that we will have major problems with the right of public access because of this coastal protection proposal. For the Moderaterna, the right of public access is important. It is important to have a right of public access that works in a good way and is not abused, because when it is abused, it happens on someone else's property. There are quite a few examples of how the right of public access is abused, but that is another debate.

For the Moderaterna, the right of public access is therefore important. The Member of Parliament asked whether it is more or less important. If the individual wants to build their dream home on the land they own next to a lake, perhaps the right of public access will be restricted on the plot at that lake. I think that is completely reasonable. The Moderaterna think that is reasonable.

Fundamentally, the coastal protection is about prohibitions and restrictions. The starting point should actually be that it is permitted to use one's land. Then, just as this bill says, one can designate certain areas if they actually need to be subject to coastal protection or coastal consideration. The natural position, however, should be that it is fundamentally permitted.

We have had the latest coastal protection law in place since 1975. I have very rarely heard anyone stand in this chamber and speak about that compensation for infringement should be paid out because someone is burdened with coastal protection. Many parties in here are very careful about that when it comes to other issues – for example, the protection of forests – then there should be money with the authority to pay individuals when restrictions are made. But when it comes to coastal protection, we have never paid out money. It feels as if we have never even discussed whether it is a restriction that should generate a payment to the landowner.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Stina Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the speech.

The last thing that came up on the table, regarding compensation for infringement because one is not allowed to build near their ditch, I look forward to seeing in a government bill. I await such a proposal with anticipation!

The Moderates spoke here about a victory for the countryside. I will take and adapt the old proverb and say that he who waits for something good often waits for too long. My question concerns exactly this.

There was a majority for a changed coastal protection legislation already three years ago. Almost to the day three years ago, in 2022, a debate was held here on similar proposals, with the same wording. The Member described just now that the difference was the 25 meters. The countryside and the companies there had, however, benefited from having this legislation in place earlier. It is the countryside and the entrepreneurs who have paid the price during the years they have had to wait. The anecdote that Widegren told clearly showed that they have indeed paid a price and that the exemptions and the regulatory framework have not functioned.

It was also interesting that Widegren referred to the article in ATL. The content of that is that agriculture is critical of the government having delayed this decision for such a long time.

My question is why this proposal has delayed for so long.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! If the Center Party's – and the Green Party's – poorly negotiated proposal had won this chamber's approval in 2022, we would have had, among other things, the limitations I spoke about earlier. I am not sure that the chamber would have torn up the legislation, but instead, one would have had to be half-satisfied. Now we are more than satisfied with what is being voted through today, even if it took a little longer.

One reason why it took a little longer is that we were waiting for the inquiry on rural industries, and that it would have time to be out for consultation, in order to be able to link it with this. I can be the first to sign that it takes too long. I do, however, think that most of the good legislation in these houses takes too long; I am, after all, fundamentally an entrepreneur.

Nevertheless, it is now in place. It is being implemented, and as we have said, we have formed a majority for this. I believe that the Centre Party, which I agree with on very many rural issues, would do well to start negotiating these issues with the Moderates again. I believe one would get more results then than one perhaps gets with those whom one has tried to negotiate this with over the past few years. It is just a small tip.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Stina Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! We have actually received an invitation from Kristersson regarding food supply and food preparedness. That includes the conditions of the countryside, so it is perhaps – at best – already underway.

John Widegren spoke about the fact that it takes time. Yes, democracy does take time. We have to live with that, and there are also a lot of advantages to it.

I would not want to agree with Widegren's description that it was a poorly negotiated proposal. There was actually a majority for it, but then the Moderaterna chose, together with other parties, to abandon the agreement we had. Unfortunately, we see examples of this now as well.

I have an additional question. There are already today areas where rules apply that are more generous than those we have on the table now. In Värmland, for example, watercourses up to 10 meters are exempt from the shoreline protection. It is important that the now proposed changes do not abolish the exceptions for these completely exempt areas. Therefore, it should be clarified that these shall continue to apply. The bill must not result in it becoming stricter in practice.

Centerpartiet has a reservation that the municipalities should have greater influence. If the government really wants to stand up for the countryside and liberal values, I wonder why the government has not already gone further by giving the municipalities greater responsibility to decide for themselves where the shore protection shall apply. Why does the government refrain from giving the municipalities the opportunity to designate so-called coastal development areas where the municipalities themselves can lift the shore protection?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for very interesting questions.

Regarding the parts where one has already gone further, it is clearly stated in the bill that they shall continue to apply and not be overturned by the new legislation. It is incredibly important, because this wisdom shall endure.

When it comes to giving the municipalities more power, there is some of that included, and I have hopes that it will become even clearer in the new investigation. I may not have only expressed love for how the county administrative boards function in many places, and this is an issue where I think it does not function particularly well. I think the county administrative boards should have as little power as possible over the shore protection rules, because it is the municipalities that know their areas best and are concerned about the development within the municipality. Giving more of the shore protection issues to the municipalities should be an important part of the investigation that hopefully will soon be launched and started.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank John Widegren for an interesting speech which clearly demonstrated the differences in ideology.

John Widegren started by saying that this implies restrictions for the individual and that it is up to each person to make their own mistakes and see what works. But can John Widegren and the Moderaterna ever think that the common utilities and the public actually take precedence over the individual's right to do as they please? Social development often becomes better if it is done together. There are laws and rules for how much a factory is allowed to emit, and I believe even the Moderaterna accept that. But as soon as it concerns an individual private person, they should be allowed to do as they please and as best they can themselves. To me, that often doesn't rhyme very well.

Now, a piece of legislation is being removed that has ensured we have common rules for how we should manage water – this important resource that may become even more important in the future for climate adaptation, drinking water, better agriculture and forestry, wildlife, recreation and tourism. These values do not always align with the individual's needs, but if I understood John Widegren correctly, the landowner shall have the right to do whatever they want on their land, period. Is that correct?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Emma Nohrén for the question.

It must not be changed but must be preserved. It must not be demolished but must be maintained. It must not be built upon, but the landscape must be kept open. With what hand, and with what money? This is what individuals have done in all times. With their money, their work, and their sweat, they have created the natural values that society benefits so greatly from today. At the same time, we have a number of legislations that are to limit landowners' ability to continue conducting their activities and creating a living from what they own and have.

We would not have had such high nature values in Sweden today if we had not had hardworking self-owning farmers. That is how it is. I almost never see city people creating nature values, but it is landowners who achieve them. It is also landowners who have the responsibility for them remaining, and for the most part, that works very well. No, one may not do whatever one wants with their land, but the basic rule should not be prohibition. The basic rule must be that the individual is allowed to use and act upon their land.

Very high nature values can be subject to formal protection, and in those cases, compensation shall be paid. Here we are in complete agreement. But a picture is being painted that this type of freedom reform will be doomsday for nature and biodiversity. But that is not what will happen, on the contrary. Landowners in the countryside will instead find joy in their lives, which will make them want to continue to develop high nature values where they live and work.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Those are big words regarding a freedom reform for the countryside. Impact assessments and referral bodies point out, however, that this will have consequences primarily around urban areas and towns. It will therefore mean increased pressure where the pressure is already high. It is these environments that will be exploited and built away. In that case, it might have been better to change the legislation so that it would have been easier to apply for a dispensation or obtain permission to do what John Widegren talks about, rather than just removing the legislation.

At the end of his answer, John Widegren said that we should protect natural values where it is needed and that compensation should be paid. The detestable county administrative boards, according to John Widegren – or perhaps that was too strong a word, but you often complain about them – are, after all, the state's extended arm, and I do not believe they will improve by the Tidöregeringen constantly removing money from them because it then becomes much harder for them to do their work. When the legislation is now being removed, one should instead give the county administrative boards money so that they can actually find and protect these natural values so that individuals do not make mistakes that affect the rest of society. Will these funds come?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! I do not know if the money will come; I will not anticipate the autumn budget discussions. But I know that the Moderates, in their budgets during the years in opposition, prioritized the management of already protected nature and wanted more funds for it. It has, in any case, been a Moderate starting point in the discussions, as much as I can say.

I still believe that an individual who is not restricted by too much prohibitive legislation enjoys creating and also managing high natural values. But prohibitions, obligations, controls and so on stifle the joy of conducting activities in the countryside. It is a fact. If you ask any rural entrepreneur, the answer will be that this is what is difficult. We can talk about predator policy, tax pressure and so on, but much is about not being allowed to do what one intended with what one owns and uses, perhaps over generations. I believe that is the major roadblock in this.

I am not as worried as Emma Nohrén and Miljöpartiet that this will become a catastrophe for nature. It is being portrayed as catastrophic legislation. No, removing the ban and making this possible will benefit the entire countryside.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! The coastal protection is an expression of a fundamental Social Democratic principle: Nature and its resources are something that we own collectively and shall manage in solidarity.

It is fundamentally about equality. Every person in our country, regardless of background, income, and place of residence, shall have the right to freely wander along our lakes and waterways. The shore protection is also about safeguarding biodiversity and climate adaptation in a time when we see increasingly clear consequences of the climate changes.

When the shore protection was introduced, it was an important step to prevent a development that we saw even then: Some, with thicker wallets than others, could privatize our beaches. Introducing the shore protection was a way to guard the right of public access and everyone's equal opportunities to enjoy nature.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats do not oppose change. On the contrary, we have for a long time demanded that the shore protection be modernized and become more purposeful. We ourselves took a first step during our time in government by submitting a bill for increased differentiation of the shore protection. The current government parties, however, chose to vote against our proposal, which has halted an opportunity for development for three years.

At the same time, eleven county administrative boards have already introduced the reliefs contained in this bill, something that all county administrative boards could have done as early as 2022. Despite three years of government power, the government has not been able to deliver anything more substantial.

Madam Speaker! Arjeplog Municipality, with approximately 2,600 inhabitants, is Sweden's richest municipality in terms of lakes, with 8,727 lakes. It is a telling example of the need for a truly differentiated order. A general shoreline protection simply does not fit everywhere.

Our criticism, therefore, is not that we would oppose greater freedom in the countryside or in rural areas. On the contrary, we see a great need to be able to more clearly take into account local conditions and make trade-offs against other important societal interests, for example, housing construction, local business development, and not least living local communities, without for that reason restricting the right of public access (allemansrätten) or free passage.

In Öckerö kommun, not least on Björkö, the need for new housing is great. A more flexible shoreline protection could enable a desirable development while we can secure the public's access to beaches and protect the environment. For us, it is crucial that the shoreline protection is fair, sustainable, and future-proof.

Madam Speaker! The coastal protection is more than just a technical detail in the Environmental Code. It is an ideological question about what kind of society we want to build. Do we want a society where access to our shores is governed by class and economy, or a society where everyone, regardless of income, can enjoy Swedish nature?

For us Social Democrats, the answer is obvious. Therefore, we say that the government's proposal in its current form is insufficient. We stand firm on a vision of a shoreline protection that is based on equality, sustainability, and solidarity, but also on a real understanding of the need for flexibility and local adaptation.

I move for approval of reservation 6.

(Applause)

In this speech, Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S) concurred.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Joakim Järrebring for the speech. In many parts, we agree. There is no doubt about that. What Joakim Järrebring calls for regarding further relaxations in the shore protection will come in part two. It was not included in that way in the proposal that Joakim Järrebring's party presented, and that was one of the reasons why we voted it down.

But that was not what I intended to ask about, rather I would like to comment on the very clear Social Democratic agitation. It was about class and economy. It was pure May Day speeches – I would think. I have never been to such an arrangement, but I can guess. I perhaps have not intended to go there either.

Those who today have the means to buy the houses located by the water with a fine view are not those who already live in the countryside and are established there. In my part of the country, for example, many wealthy Norwegians and Germans come who buy these houses. It is not the ordinary citizens who already live there who have the chance to buy them. They simply do not have the finances, as Joakim Järrebring pointed out.

That is why it is very important that we achieve changes, so that ordinary people have the opportunity to build houses with these beautiful views and so that people want to live in the countryside. In that way, we can achieve continued development in the countryside. It is true, therefore, that it is about class and economy, but not at all in the way that Joakim Järrebring highlighted in his speech.

But we still exclude the ordinary rural citizen if we do not improve the shore protection further, which we want to do in part two.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Kjell-Arne Ottosson for the comments to my speech.

Of course I gave an ideologically driven speech. Previous debaters in the debate have also done so. I think it is both important and clarifying for ordinary people to hear where the parties stand and what political positions they take.

As said, I agree that we need a reformed coastal protection. My criticism, which I have expressed both in the exchanges and in the main presentation, is that the government lacks the important balance. It is about completely removing the coastal protection and not taking into account the need for free passage and the possibility of exercising the right of public access. That is where the government goes wrong. It is important, I believe, to also have those perspectives with you in the continued work of formulating the assignment and the directives for the new investigation. We cannot privatize more of our lakes and watercourses. It is not possible.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Joakim Järrebring mentions "the important balance." Yes, we would certainly need to achieve a better balance regarding exactly the right of public access, given what the purpose of the right of public access was when it was first established.

I have noted that Joakim Järrebring has spoken several times about "exploiting" the right of public access (allemansrätten). I do not know if there is a thought behind it or if it is a slip of the tongue, but unfortunately, that is exactly what is happening: Companies exploit the right of public access without the landowner being on board and without agreements being concluded. One is, therefore, going further than one should. There is a judgment from the Supreme Court, the river regulation judgment from the mid-90s, which clearly points out that there are limits to the right of public access: It may be used in organized and commercial activities, but it must not create inconveniences for the landowner or damage the land.

I believe we have a significantly larger job to do there, because I note how nature tourism in some parts absolutely exploits – precisely the word that Joakim Järrebring has used – the right of public access for its own purposes without having those who actually own the land along for the ride.

Does Joakim Järrebring not see a challenge in this? There is no doubt that the right of public access is important, but there are still limits to the right of public access – or are there? That is my question to Joakim Järrebring.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Kjell-Arne Ottosson for giving me the opportunity to correct a somewhat sloppy use of the term exploit. It is clear that one should enjoy the right of public access. That there is an over-exploitation, an abuse, I am the first to admit. But that is not what this debate is about.

I think it is important that the government parties bring a better balance as we now move forward with more differentiated legislation. Then we shall help each other and ensure that abuse of the right of public access is curbed.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to Joakim Järrebring for an interesting speech!

Ideology is coming back. I think it is very positive that our speeches become a bit more ideological so that the dividing lines become clear and our visions for the future become clear.

I heard Joakim Järrebring say that in the Social Democrats' world of ideas, resources and nature are managed collectively. I rather have a vision of community without collective detailed management, a society with cohesion, with the community of free will and with cooperation. We stick together. We cooperate because we want to. That is my vision. It is a good stretch away, but it is my vision.

I don't really like what I hear in the social democratic ideological vision, because it sounds to me like the Social Democrats do not believe in humanity. The Social Democrats believe that everyone is selfish and will cheat if they get the chance.

It is not my view of people. It is not my experience either. It is rather the opposite. People are usually benevolent, loving, and altruistic. That is at least my experience.

One example is that if one relaxes the shore protection, the person who owns the land will develop the land. One might build a house for oneself. One might build a house that one can rent out to others. Then one gives people who do not have the wallet to buy such a place the opportunity to come to a coastal location.

The question then becomes: Do the Social Democrats believe in humanity?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! Thanks to Staffan Eklöf for the questions!

It is perhaps somewhat sane that the member does not like what I say from the rostrum. There is probably a reason why we belong to different parties, I think. It is perhaps also a very important reason why I would have been a very poor employee at the Sverigedemokraternas riksdagskansli.

Of course, we Social Democrats have a positive view of humanity. On the other hand, we are very clear that we do not believe in an unregulated market economy. We do not believe that the market solves the big, difficult challenges without political governance. Here, perhaps we differ. I have not studied in detail the Sweden Democrats' view on entrepreneurship and the market – whether it is to be completely unregulated or if rule systems are actually required to ensure that we do not get an over-exploitation of, for example, natural resources.

Our view is very clear: clear rules were needed. In many other respects, I believe that the Sweden Democrats also think that we need to have a rule-based society and not that we should imagine that all people are just kind to one another and that one does not need a regulatory framework. We Social Democrats believe that rules are needed also to protect the environment and maintain a functioning right of public access and free access to our lakes and watercourses.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! We probably believe in slightly less detailed regulation than the Social Democrats, even though we believe in a primarily regulated market economy. But we probably want to put a bit more pressure on trust and less detailed regulation. Not least, we want to recreate the trust in society that existed when I grew up.

There is a risk when one deals too much with detailed regulations for the sake of the common good and micro-manages individuals and imposes rules and uncertainties on them, which bureaucracy can entail: One can ultimately end up in that version of social democracy which I do not believe exists everywhere but which existed in Sandviken when I grew up and which immunized me against social democracy for all time. There, it was not important to help the one who was doing poorly, but it was important to bring down the one who was doing well. It may be a working-class mentality, but that was how it was in Sandviken – if one is not allowed to have something, then no one shall have it.

I am thinking instead that we let the individual's power blossom. One can build that cottage and rent it out. Then the society can, for example, give all families a grant for a week in the countryside so that families living in the city, perhaps in vulnerable areas, can be together for a week and break unhealthy connections to companions who lead one down the wrong path. So I think that one can get society on a better path, based on how I see that the human being looks.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! I completely share the view that we need to have purpose-oriented regulations and not too much detailed management. We shall have enough rules, but we shall not have too many rules. It creates unnecessary and difficult administration and difficult decisions. On that, we are in complete agreement.

We also agree that precisely the trust between people is an incredible strength in a society. Therefore, it becomes strange for me to hear a Sverigedemokrat utter those words, for if there is any political force in Sweden that diminishes the trust between people and drives towards a we-and-they society, it is precisely the Sverigedemokraterna.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the proposal in the report and the rejection of all reservations.

The legislative changes in the bill aim to create a clearer and more purposeful coastal protection with better conditions to build housing and develop and operate businesses in coastal locations. This is, therefore, a freedom reform. It is a reform that places the right of ownership in the light where the right of ownership should be.

We have heard in several previous exchanges and also in speeches about the struggle between city and countryside. I want to absolutely assert that this is something that will truly make a difference in the countryside. In the city, one is already allowed to build by the water – yes, even on the water if one wants. But we who live in the countryside shall build as far from the water as possible.

This is extremely important for us to achieve a development of the countryside. If it stands still, it will automatically begin to regress. Then the countryside will die out, and that is something no one wants.

I will not mention the name, but it was a former minister in the red team who said this: When city dwellers are going to go out to the countryside and relax, it must work there too. Yes, it must work all the time, even for those of us who live there all the time. If there are to be people in the countryside who ensure that fields are kept open, that there are shops, and that it works to live there, one must also give them the conditions to be able to live there.

Therefore, this is an important part. As has been said earlier, it is part one. More will come, but this is a first and extremely important part.

Even this with municipalities versus county administrative boards has been raised, Madam Speaker. Is there anyone who has the local knowledge? It is our municipal politicians. We must arrive at legislation regarding the shore protection where we truly trust our municipal politicians. It is they who are in the driver's seat. It is they who have the local knowledge. It is they who know what it looks like. They do not need to sit and look at a map and then try to form an opinion. They know what it looks like, and otherwise it is no longer – at least not in large parts of the country – than they can go out and look.

In the referral, over 20 motions are addressed that concern precisely the local and municipal influence. These are motions that cross the political centerline. It is therefore very clear in the motions that local knowledge and municipal politics are extremely important. The municipal politicians must be given greater weight in this, because they are the ones who know.

There is also talk about providing legitimacy, Madam Speaker. I shall quote from the report: "The shore protection entails a restriction on an individual's opportunity to freely dispose of their coastal property and therefore the starting point should be that the scope of the shore protection shall not be greater than what is justified by the purposes of the shore protection. In order to achieve acceptance for the rules, it is also important that the connection between the scope of the shore protection and its purposes appears comprehensible." It is simply a matter of signing.

Let me take an example. In a municipality in Värmland, there was a landowner who had intended to start a strawberry cultivation. However, it turned out that the land where he began plowing was quite wet. In a valley, he got stuck with the tractor. He apparently had no use for that tractor, as it remained there for two years before he managed to get it out. When the tractor had been recovered, a pool of water had formed where it had stood, because the land there was quite waterlogged.

Then this landowner wanted to build a small summer cottage not so far from there. He was denied because of the water surface that his own tractor had helped create while it stood there while he was going to do his hobby farming.

Such things, Madam Speaker, do not really give legitimacy to the coastal protection legislation we have.

It is also important that we give our farmers the opportunity to have dams on their land. It is very important that one can construct wildlife waters without, for that reason, building up a shoreline protection. Just this with the legitimacy is very important, not least for the green industries.

Madam Speaker! It is clear that we have a large majority in the chamber for these changes, which is pleasing. But we also have two parties that clearly point out that they would like to see the countryside as a museum: We shall have no development. The countryside shall be preserved in some kind of dream state, whatever that may be.

If we do that, the countryside will die out, because then no one can stay, live and work there. Then one has nothing to live on. Therefore, this is a very important reform for the countryside's development, even if it is only part one now.

Earlier, it became a huge news story in Värmland that there were fears that previously revoked coastal protection could be reinstated. When those news reports came on SVT Värmland, I contacted the department immediately to ensure that was not the case. They told me that it was not so. It will not be able to be reinstated. To truly clarify this, it was also written in that the revocation of coastal protection will continue to apply, even if that was the intention in the texts that already existed – precisely so that we would not receive this type of backlash that actually no one desires.

Madam Speaker! This is, as said, a first step, a first good step. I absolutely look forward to the continuation, part two, when it arrives.

(Applause)

In this speech, Staffan Eklöf (SD) agreed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to Kjell-Arne Ottosson for the speech!

Based on what has been said earlier during today's debate, it is probably quite obvious to most that there is a certain concern within the Social Democrats that the government is not quite succeeding in maintaining the important balance between preserving environmental values and upholding the freedom that everyone enjoys through the right of public access (allemansrätten). That concern is not entirely unfounded. There is much criticism regarding how the government has managed the financing of the protection and maintenance of valuable nature and its difficulties in keeping up with invasive alien species because the money is insufficient.

We heard in the exchange with the Moderate member that the Moderates are pushing in the government for more money to be allocated to the protection and maintenance of valuable nature. This raises the question: Is it the Christian Democrats who are holding back these investments?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the question, Joakim Järrebring!

The short answer is no. It is not us who are braking this. What we have been clear about is that we now actually must see to it that we begin to manage the land that the state has already taken from ordinary people, an action that I can question in many respects. We must manage what the state has already taken before the state then continues to take more. It is important that the money is allowed to go to that instead of taking additional land.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Kjell-Arne Ottosson, for a very straight and clear message!

I find it hard to believe that it is the Liberals who are holding back these investments. That leaves only one party in the government support, namely the Sweden Democrats. Is it perhaps the case that the government has chosen a very troublesome partner when it comes to ensuring that we protect and care for the valuable nature in Sweden?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! The fact is, Joakim Järrebring, that I sit in the Riksdag and not in the government. Therefore, I am not involved in the negotiations. What happens at the Government Offices and in the negotiations there, I do not know, because I am not involved there – even though I will willingly admit that quite many times it would have been very fun to be a fly on the wall there.

Joakim Järrebring speaks about a troublesome partner. I must nevertheless just remind that Joakim Järrebring's party sat together with Miljöpartiet and were to attempt to negotiate a coastal protection proposal. I do not know who had the most troublesome partner regarding just this.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the speech, Kjell-Arne Ottosson!

I become a bit thoughtful when I listen to Kjell-Arne Ottosson. I also live in the countryside – I actually believe that the majority in our committee are rural residents, not just Kjell-Arne Ottosson. I believe that most people in the countryside want service there. They want school, healthcare, and elderly care. They want to feel that they can live there. From the member, it sounds as if if one does not get to live near water, one will die. I do not believe there is any evidence for that at all. Then one might have a more pleasant life if one looks down into a water surface, but the most important thing is still to have access to service.

I want to remind Kjell-Arne Ottosson that the government to which his party belongs has cut 100 million and 36 service centers in Sweden. A cap has been placed on Klimatklivet. 30 percent of rural companies and farmers are standing in line and cannot make the transition they need to make.

The only thing that has been done for the countryside is to lower the price of gasoline and lock people into old technology instead of making it possible to lease electric cars and transition for a modern Sweden in the future.

If this is to be the largest rural reform, I wonder what the status is with the Christian Democrats' rural policy. Being able to build a house near a small river or a ditch cannot be the biggest survival issue, especially not when there are actually significant disadvantages for society in many other parts. Why beat the big drum and remove the prohibition instead of making the small changes so that one can have a good life and service? Why remove instead of modifying?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Emma Nohrén for the question.

I will give Emma Nohrén credit that the evidence that one dies if one does not get to live near water is weak, but that was not what I said either. I understand that Emma Nohrén is trying to use the point!

Emma Nohrén mentioned the legitimacy in the issue of a ditch that stops a construction. It is not even about living somewhere where one can see the lake or the pond, but instead, it is about that something is wrong if even a small ditch stops the construction.

In order for the countryside to live, people must live in the municipality and pay taxes to the municipality. In that way, money will come in for the parts that Emma Nohrén mentioned. Therefore, it is important that we create opportunities, for example through fuel prices that work. We provide more money to our rural grocers, so that they can develop their business and remain.

Now, it is largely about facilitating and removing regulations for our green industries for both land and forest, in order not to put spokes in the wheels of our farmers who produce our high-quality, fantastic Swedish food, or for our forest owners who are climate heroes because they manage their own forest and ensure that it becomes an important tool in the fight against climate change while the forest provides goods to push out fossil energy. Thus, it becomes an additional win. It is those things that make it easier to live in the countryside, and that is what the government is working on.

But the legislation on coastal protection is something that very few understand, and that is something wrong. Then we must redo it and do it right. That is what we do in this first part.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Kjell-Arne Ottosson for the answer.

Of course I mocked it, but you presented it so nicely!

You speak of a legislative change, and what we see is an abolition of a piece of legislation. The Member has, together with the others from the Tidö parties and the Social Democrats, spoken about how the proposal is good for rural development. It is a rural reform.

We have seen the consequence descriptions, even if they were not so detailed in the report itself. Many of the referral bodies have pointed out that the biggest changes and the greatest threat will be around suburban environments and urban environments where the pressure is already high.

How is it that you are removing the legislation instead of changing the parts where we most often agree – improvements of ditches and irrigation ponds? You are now removing 10 percent of the protection that exists in Sweden through a sleight of hand, and then you call it a rural improvement or a reform for the countryside. We know that water bodies around urban areas and peri-urban environments will be subjected to high pressure. This must be addressed. We will not achieve our environmental quality standards and other things if the issue is left open.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I do not believe that the number of summer cottages near our major cities will increase because they are allowed to build near a ditch or a stream. That is not what the question is about. But we are removing rules for not least the countryside. The rules have lain like a wet blanket and braked in a way that has made it so that no one has understood why a small stream should stop me from building my house. I want to build and live on my own land, settle in the municipality and ensure that tax revenues come into the municipality. It will be a living countryside. And then it is about a ditch. It is not even about building near a lake, but it is a ditch that puts a stop to it.

This does not give legitimacy to the issue. This is about using some kind of sound common sense in the coastal protection. There is a large majority in the chamber for the change. Just as I said in my speech, there are two parties that want it differently, namely Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet. They want to preserve the countryside in some kind of pre-industrial era. That is what they strive for.

We have had discussions about the nature restoration law, and there it has been talk about that we should go back to pre-industrial times as well. It is always the countryside we talk about, namely that it is the countryside that is to be corrected and repaired. But is there anywhere where we really, in my view, have built away the nature, it is in our cities.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Madam Speaker! The purposes of the coastal protection are to safeguard the public's access to beaches and to preserve good living conditions for animal and plant life on land and in the water. The government's and the Sweden Democrats' proposal implies clear deteriorations, which we in the Left Party oppose. The bill is yet another in a series of examples of politics that benefits a few and disadvantages most of us.

In the government's proposal, the shore protection is repealed at hundreds of thousands of lakes and along over 1 million kilometers of watercourses that are narrower than 2 meters. This means in practice that the government abandons the very basic idea of a general shore protection, and unfortunately, it is only a first step.

The government itself acknowledges that the general public who do not have access to a seaside property are negatively affected by increased coastal construction. Individuals also risk being affected by lower access to clean water, including drinking water, and an increased risk of flooding. The government also notes that the proposals in the bill lead to negative effects for flora and fauna.

Madam Speaker! The shore protection is at least an important part of the right of public access, which gives us all the opportunity to move freely in nature regardless of our wallet. To remove the shore protection at hundreds of thousands of lakes and watercourses implies a major restriction of the right of public access. Our right to walk, hike, train, swim, fish, or ice skate at untouched shores is of great value to many people.

If beaches are built upon, the public's access to untouched beaches decreases. The proposal in the Government Bill will further worsen the conditions for outdoor life in everyday life. For me as a member of the Left Party, this is fundamentally a matter of justice. Since rivers vary in width along a stretch, the result of the changes the government wants to introduce will become messy when stretches with and without coastal protection alternate. When coastal protection disappears completely along a watercourse, there will also not be any requirements for free passage along the water, which would have been the case if a landowner had instead received a dispensation in the same location. All of this clearly implies clear deteriorations for everyone who wants to move in nature.

A clear majority of Swedes also think it is a bad proposal to weaken the shore protection. Already today, there is a possibility for the county administrative board to lift the shore protection at small lakes and watercourses. With current legislation, there is also a possibility for both municipalities and county administrative boards to grant exemptions from the shore protection. But such an exemption shall be examined to ensure that it does not conflict with the shore protection's purposes of safeguarding the public's access to nature and preserving nature that is of special value. Every year, several thousand exemptions are granted, and the exploitation of the shores is thus already increasing today, before the government's proposal has been implemented. The vast majority of those who apply for an exemption are granted it.

Madam Speaker! Approximately one-third of Sweden's red-listed species have their habitat in the coastal zone. Such areas are of great importance for biological diversity. Watercourses and shores link natural areas and can function as dispersal corridors for species that live both in the water and on land.

Sweden has promised both internationally and through decisions in the Riksdag that we shall improve the conditions for biological diversity. But these proposals lead to the exact opposite. Exploitation in areas that have previously been protected means that natural values are lost. It can involve logging, land preparation and drainage, and the construction of paved surfaces and new buildings.

The watercourses that are narrower than two meters constitute approximately 80 percent of the watercourse length in Sweden. It would be a gigantic task for the county administrative boards to identify which parts are particularly important, especially since the majority of the watercourses are never investigated. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that they will manage to cover more than the very most protected areas.

Madam Speaker! The climate crisis means that we will more frequently be affected by extreme weather and flooding. There will be a greater risk of landslides, avalanches, and coastal erosion. Because of this, insurance coverage may change in the future for many. According to the Financial Supervisory Authority, there is a risk that it will become too expensive for some homeowners to take out home insurance. In the worst case, it may not be possible at all.

Unexploited shores protect against floods and extreme weather by buffering high water flows and functioning as natural filters. Since Sweden has for a long time protected the shores against exploitation, we are better equipped against heavy rainfall and floods than many other countries. But this now risks changing as a result of the government's and Sverigedemokraternas policy.

Recent years have shown the great risks involved in building housing near beaches. Many in Sweden have been affected by water-filled houses and basements. The insurance industry has for a long time warned of increased costs as a result of the climate crisis and now warns of the consequences of a weakened coastal protection.

Several referral bodies also warn of the risks for property owners when the general shoreline protection is abolished at small lakes and watercourses. In the first instance, it will be up to the individual to determine whether the site is exempt from shoreline protection, which means there is a high risk that individuals will suffer serious economic consequences in the event of an incorrect assessment. It risks leading to more disputes over whether shoreline protection applies or not.

Madam Speaker! In the bill, the Government proposes that shore protection shall not apply to bodies of water that have been constructed after 1975. I and my party believe that it is too far-reaching to exempt all bodies of water constructed after 1975, as they can also have great value for both biological diversity and outdoor life. This can involve, for example, wildlife waters and ponds for amphibians. Often, water is recreated in places where there was previously a lake or a wetland. Even today, completely artificial bodies of water, for example ditches, are not fully covered by shore protection, contrary to what the right often claims.

Vänsterpartiet also sees that it is important that there is no uncertainty ahead for individuals who consider establishing a body of water if shore protection may later be introduced there. It can have an inhibiting effect on the establishment of new wetlands and ponds. Therefore, there are reasons to adapt the shore protection rules so that they do not reduce the willingness to establish or restore wetlands and other bodies of water. We therefore believe that the government should issue regulations stating that shore protection shall not apply to bodies of water that are established or restored.

Madam Speaker! The Left Party also believes that there are reasons to expand the possibilities for exemptions from the shore protection for those parts of our country that are sparsely populated. Our view is that this should occur within the framework of the existing system for rural development in coastal areas, so-called LIS areas. LIS areas are designated by the municipalities and provide the possibility for exemptions from the shore protection to create conditions for rural development, primarily within areas that have good access to untouched shores.

The current LIS system should be developed to benefit the countryside without resulting in far-reaching effects for nature and for the public's access to it. It is reasonable that, for example, residential construction is facilitated in sparsely populated areas with low development pressure through exemptions from the shoreline protection.

To open up for such minor changes of the shore protection, to issue regulations that shore protection shall not apply at newly created waters and to develop the system with LIS areas are significantly more proportionate measures than the broad attack on the right of public access that the government proposes.

Madam Speaker! Several high-profile cases have shown that among the wealthiest in Sweden, there is a perception that it is fair game to break the shoreline protection rules to, for example, build a helipad or a pier for a luxury boat. That the government and the Sverigedemokraterna are now step by step dismantling the shoreline protection is a gift to these people, who consider themselves above the law.

For the Left Party, it is quite the opposite, a self-evident truth that the shores shall be for everyone. Being able to take a dip in a small lake or to hike along a stream should not be a class issue.

I vote in favor of reservation 1 and therefore for the rejection of the bill.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! It was interesting to listen to Andrea Andersson Tays' speech. It becomes, as in a previous exchange of remarks, very clear that there really is an ideological difference. This has also emerged in our previous exchanges of remarks, in other matters.

I still become a bit thoughtful when Andrea Andersson Tay claims that the land around hundreds of thousands of lakes will be built upon, that we will no longer be able to go ice skating and that it will be logged all the way down to all the shores.

Madam Speaker! With these changes, I do not believe that construction will take place around hundreds of thousands of lakes in our country. Even if it were that dense, people would still not want to live there.

I have not conducted any survey, but I would think that I belong to those in this chamber who skate the most long-distance. When I have skated, it has not hindered me at all that there is a summer cottage or some house near the lake.

Regarding logging, one does not cut down to the water line today. One leaves a buffer zone. One shows general consideration. That is already included today. There will also be no change in that as a result of this bill.

What Andrea Andersson Tay raises in his speech is a form of fear propaganda rather than the truth.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Madam Speaker! I agree that there is a clear ideological difference here. The difference lies between those of us who think it is important for everyone, the general public, to move in nature, and the right wing who think it is important that there is a freedom for those with the biggest wallets to build freely on their plots.

What I have said in my speech is that the shore protection is disappearing broadly from large areas of our country. It concerns 10 percent of Sweden's area. For those people who are affected by the fact that just their swimming lake or the place where they usually hike in nature disappears, I think it is a rather small consolation that it might not be built at exactly all lakes and streams in the country.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! It is pleasing to hear from a Left Party member about freedom for all.

In a previous exchange, I raised this point about the economy, which Andrea Andersson Tay mentioned now. Again: Today, it is those with large wallets who can afford to buy the houses located near our lakes and waterways. But now we are giving ordinary people who do not have the large wallets the opportunity to build on their own land. That is the difference. But Vänsterpartiet does not even want to agree to that.

When it comes to the fact that we will not be able to use the right of public access, houses will not be built at every ditch in all of Sweden. But we will ensure that ditches and small streams do not participate in hindering development and putting spokes in the wheels for someone who wants to build a house. In the rhetoric, however, it sounds as if we are going to build on every shore of all lakes that are smaller than one hectare. It sounds, according to Andrea Andersson Tay, as if we are going to build along our streams that are smaller than two meters, on every single meter, and that there will not be a spot left to walk on.

But that is not the truth. Again: This is a form of fear propaganda. Possibly it is about left-wing envy over that some can build. I don't know, but it is in any case not the truth. It will not be so.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Madam Speaker! I can remind you of some other things that I said in my speech.

The absolute majority of those who seek a dispensation from the shore protection today receive it. I ask myself: Why is it not enough to tweak the existing regulatory framework, if what one primarily wants to achieve is rural development? Vänsterpartiet also has such proposals. As I explained, we want to develop the system with LIS areas. We also want to facilitate the construction of, for example, new wetlands. If it is only rural development that one wants to achieve, why is it not enough to tweak the regulatory framework and clarify these matters in order to facilitate things in certain parts?

From the right side, people like to take examples of individual persons who they claim have been negatively affected by the shore protection. I would like to take a personal example of the opposite. When I was little, I visited my grandmother every year, who lived in the countryside outside Järvsö in Hälsingland. Every day we went and swam in a small forest pond that was located nearby and which was surely owned by someone else. With the rules that the government now wants to introduce, the possibility would have increased for the owner to build a house or various things that would have made it so that we could no longer swim there.

That is exactly how it looks in many places in the country. People risk losing swimming lakes that have been used for a long time and which are accessible to the general public, not just for the individual property owner.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Andrea Andersson Tay, for the presentation!

We are told that there are dangers here – that a relaxed shore protection could provide less accessibility to the water so that people cannot go ice skating where they usually do, and therefore the shore protection should not be relaxed. We are told that instead of informing, people should be prohibited from building in places threatened by flooding due to climate change.

Vänsterpartiet and Andrea Andersson Tay proceed from a single notion of what people want. Is that not the core of the problem with Vänsterpartiet's policy? They imagine that they are to work for all people and ask themselves what they want to do. They think: "That is probably what they want to do, and then we shall see to it that it becomes so."

But people and reality are extremely complex. A relaxed coastal protection, for example, means that more people can afford to live near the coast. It increases the possibilities for development. Perhaps one can start a canoe rental so that those who cannot afford to buy a canoe can rent one, perhaps with the help of the Christian Democrats' leisure card.

A problem according to Andrea Andersson Tay is a fragmented shoreline. At the same time, one wants to limit the relief to one or two houses, but if several houses are allowed to be built in the same location, there are greater possibilities that the shoreline will not be fragmented. If a municipality, for example, can place several houses in the same end of the lake, it will result in more accessibility at the lake overall.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Madam Speaker! I repeat once again the proposals that the Left Party has and which I set out in my speech. We believe that one can very well reform the system with LIS areas that exists already today in order to facilitate certain construction in rural areas where there may be a need for it.

It would be very interesting if Staffan Eklöf could find someone who wants the freedom to be affected by floods. I believe that the vast majority of people would actually appreciate receiving that type of guidance from the public sector so that they can avoid being hit by such enormous costs as floods entail.

I truly see the shore protection as an important issue of freedom, because it means a freedom to move in nature for the general public, not just for those who have the thickest wallet.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! Andrea Andersson Tay mentions that it would be a guidance, but that is precisely what I am requesting. It is better to give guidance or a tip to the person who is rebuilding that it might perhaps become flooded there in a while. It is, moreover, only a guess, as the forecasts are very uncertain.

Then, instead, one ensures that exceptions cannot be granted from the shore protection. It thus becomes a prohibition. But we do not know what the individual wants. The individual might want to build a boathouse, and in that case, it fits perfectly that it is located by the water. A small boathouse can actually be moved if the shoreline is raised slightly after 20–30 years, provided it has been built in such a way that it is possible.

We do not know what the individual wants. The state can never become an ombudsman for what people and individuals think. It is an important principle, I believe. I believe that Vänsterpartiet is on the wrong track regarding that principle.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Madam Speaker! From the representatives for the Tidö parties, it sounds as if it would be impossible to obtain an exemption from the shore protection today, but that is really not the case. The absolute majority of those who apply for an exemption receive it today. Therefore, we see that it is quite sufficient to tweak the existing regulatory framework to achieve the desired effect.

I am quite certain that people will be deeply disappointed by authorities that do not act to protect them from serious climate risks. We already see evidence of this today. People testify that they have applied to the municipality to build in a certain location and that the municipality has said nothing about it. When they are hit by serious floods a short time later, they say: Why were we not informed about the risk? I would not have wanted to build here if I had known it would turn out like this.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Today I am actually a little extra proud and satisfied to stand here in the speaker's chair. Now we are doing something that many have talked about for a long time. Now we are liberalizing the shore protection. Now we are making Sweden a little freer. Now we are strengthening the right of ownership. We are doing it under the liberal flag together in the government cooperation. It is a great victory.

The coastal protection, or perhaps rather the hindrance it entails for the countryside in its current form, is probably the political issue that has followed me the longest, actually since long before I became politically active. The coastal protection has, for as long as I can remember, been a topic of conversation at home, for many reasons. The frustration is great on good grounds.

There is no doubt that there is a great need to reform the shore protection. We need to make it more purposeful, and we need to increase the acceptance of the regulatory framework.

Madam Speaker! There are those who take a very strong tone and argue that we are now slaughtering both the right of public access and Swedish nature. That is not the case. We do not have the preservation of current coastal protection in one scale and anarchy in the other.

What we are doing is taking a first step to reform, not abolish, the coastal protection – a coastal protection that in parts lacks both sense and reason. It is an order that fundamentally risks undermining the legitimacy of the coastal protection, which is already frayed at the edges.

Madam Speaker! I love being out in nature, setting a course towards a place and getting there on foot, walking through the forest, over streams and past forest ponds. I like to stop for a while at the water's edge at one of all the lakes that exist in my home region. Maybe I take a dip. These are areas that today are covered by a general shoreline protection. But is it really justified?

Having the opportunity to move freely in forest and land is a blessing. The conditions for this are practically unlimited in Sweden today. It is something that we liberals cherish.

The purposes of the shore protection are precisely to secure the conditions for public access to coastal areas under the right of public access, but also to preserve and protect biodiversity, and that is important.

At the same time, the development of the shoreline protection that we have seen over time, precisely to serve these two purposes, has entailed great sacrifices for private individuals, companies, and communities, and perhaps primarily in rural areas.

Now we stand here with an all-too strict and far-reaching shoreline protection that hampers both small-scale entrepreneurship and the development of the countryside. It sometimes has completely unreasonable consequences.

For many who live near water, the shore protection has entailed a noticeable restriction of freedom. It is a restriction of the right to dispose of the land that one owns, cares for, and manages.

Therefore, this step towards a liberalization of the coastal protection legislation is both long-awaited and welcome. The purposes of the coastal protection remain, but the weight in the balancing against property rights shall be shifted in favor of more freedom, as it should with a bourgeois government at the helm, and in the direction of a strengthened property right.

Property rights, this liberal fundamental principle, is governing in so much of what we regulate here in the chamber. It is the guarantee that the individual's interest is protected when the state decides on restrictions of ownership.

At the same time, certain restrictions are necessary to uphold a long series of public interests. It is to protect the environment, to ensure the public's access to nature, to be able to build infrastructure, and to meet the interests of the defense. The list can be made very long.

Where the limit for these restrictions should be drawn, we differ. It is completely obvious when one listens to the debate we have had here today. The fact remains: restrictions on property rights must be proportionate, reasonable, and well-motivated.

Think what you want about the shore protection, but one thing is certain. Shore protection for man-made bodies of water is not proportionate. It is completely unreasonable that shore protection applies if I construct a pond or dig a ditch.

The current coastal protection serves us very well in some respects. But in other respects, and actually quite many, it is a bureaucratic colossus that lays a wet blanket over large parts of our country. To what benefit, one must ask?

Is it reasonable that it is as in Arjeplog, which has already been mentioned here today? It is a municipality with a bit over 2,500 inhabitants and 8,800 lakes. Is it reasonable that there is a general shoreline protection at practically every small water body in that part of Sweden? I actually do not think so.

It hinders a potential and necessary development of the countryside. The public, both those who live, live and work in and safeguard the most sparsely populated parts of Sweden, and for all intents and purposes everyone who visits these regions, will also, even if we were to see a major construction boom following the reforms we are now making, have excellent conditions to have access to shores.

Madam Speaker! I believe I have said this before in this chamber. Sweden's countryside and rural areas are not Skansen. We who live outside the cities are not extras.

What I and many with me wish for is a coastal protection that does not make it unnecessarily difficult to live, manage and develop the community even outside of detailed-planned areas.

But isn't the shore protection important for safeguarding the public's access to beaches? Yes, absolutely. Isn't the shore protection also important for safeguarding and promoting biodiversity? Yes, clearly.

But is it reasonable that we in this equation curtail property rights and thus individual freedom so much, as the current regulatory framework actually does? The answer to that question is simple. The answer is no. The restrictions that are made must be well-motivated and, again, proportionate. They are not today.

Madam Speaker! What is it that we are proposing? Well, we propose that there should be no general shore protection for small lakes and smaller watercourses. We propose that the shore protection for lakes and watercourses for artificial waters constructed before June 1975 shall be removed, and we also make certain concessions for business activities for land-based industries. It is an important and welcome regulation where we change so that entrepreneurship in the countryside gets better conditions.

Madam Speaker! I return to the question of shore protection for constructed bodies of water. Let me take an example from Lekeberg, my home municipality. About ten years ago, when I was active as a municipal politician, the owner of a golf course where there were two constructed ponds wanted to plan for residential plots. But then it was stopped. The County Administrative Board said no. The ponds, which had been constructed ten to twelve years before that point in time, were, according to the County Administrative Board, covered by shore protection.

It finally worked out after a fair amount of maneuvering. But it is not reasonable that it is considered beach protection for man-made ponds on a golf course. It clearly restricts property rights and has a negative impact on community development, and it affects the public's view of beach protection.

But aren't we going a bit too far when we abolish the general coastal protection for smaller lakes and watercourses? No, absolutely not. The restriction that coastal protection entails in these cases means, in addition to unnecessary red tape, that it becomes unnecessarily difficult to utilize one's land in the way one wishes. It actually cannot be justified.

Now we are increasing the freedom for the one who owns the land. But is it not the case that there may be reason to have shore protection at a small lake or a narrow watercourse, if it is precisely at that lake or watercourse that it is of particular importance that the shore protection remains or is reintroduced? Yes, there can be reason for that. But it must then be justified well and occur with great restraint. It is important to emphasize that.

The general rule shall be that small lakes and watercourses shall no longer be covered by the shore protection. It is important that the possibility to reintroduce the shore protection should exist. But it is also important that we are clear that it shall occur restrictively.

Madam Speaker! What we are presenting in this bill is the first step in a liberalization of the shore protection. It is something that we know is much awaited by very many. It is very important that the shore protection is not more extensive than what is justified based on its purposes.

For the individual property owner, the shore protection often means a restriction in their ability to freely dispose of their property. If the restrictions resulting from the current regulatory framework cannot be justified based on the need for protection, the regulatory framework risks losing acceptance. It is, in any case, a development that I want to put a stop to.

With the changes that we are now proposing, we increase legitimacy while simultaneously strengthening the individual's freedom. Now we strengthen the right of ownership, now we promote the development of the countryside, and now we build a better and freer Sweden. That is something I will, in any case, celebrate when we finally get to press green here in the chamber.

(Applause)

(cont. § 14)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)